G.R. No. 115932 . January 25, 1995.
THE SPOUSES JOSE B. TIONGCO and LETICIA M. TIONGCO, petitioners, vs. HON. SEVERIANO C. AGUILAR, Judge, RTC, Branch 35, Iloilo City, and the Spouses WILFREDO and LORENA AGUIRRE, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an administrative proceeding against Atty. Jose B. Tiongco, counsel for the petitioners. The Supreme Court required Atty. Tiongco to show cause why he should not be disciplined for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court cited his use of intemperate and scurrilous language in a petition for certiorari, including an insinuation that the Court did not read the petition, and his characterization of the respondent judge’s decision as “crafted to fool the winning party,” a “hypocritical judgment,” and one “you could have sworn it was the Devil who dictated it.” He also personally attacked the judge, calling him a “liar,” “thief,” “perjurer,” and “blasphemer.”
In his Compliance, Atty. Tiongco did not retract his statements or show remorse. Instead, he attempted to justify his words as truthful, volunteered additional derogatory terms he had used (such as “robber” and “rotten manipulator”), and concluded with sarcastic remarks, including “RESPECTFUL APOLOGIES — AND UNDYING LOVE.”

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Jose B. Tiongco violated his professional duties through the use of intemperate, disrespectful, and scandalous language in his pleadings, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found Atty. Tiongco guilty of gross violation of Canon 11, which mandates that a lawyer shall observe and maintain respect for the courts. His Compliance was deemed unsatisfactory and unacceptable. He impliedly admitted the falsity of his insinuation against the Court and failed to justify the relevance or truthfulness of his numerous intemperate characterizations of the respondent judge. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer may vigorously pursue a client’s cause, they must do so within the bounds of propriety and decency.
The use of such language exhibited gross disrespect and contempt for the Court and the judge, undermined public confidence in judicial administration, and degraded the administration of justice. His actions, fueled by apparent anger and arrogance after an unfavorable ruling, exceeded the limits of professional advocacy. The Court held that the maintenance of freedom of expression in legal pleadings is secured only within a functioning and orderly system of justice, which is jeopardized by such offensive and abusive language. Accordingly, Atty. Tiongco was ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and was sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.